Maybe I wasn't paying attention but: no mention of Stalin deliberately starving some four million Ukrainian kulaks to death in the '30s. If NATO has missiles in Poland it's because the Poles begged (and I do mean 'begged') for them. Does Taibbi know any Pole, Czech, Slovak, Romanian, etc. who are eager to be subsumed into a Russian empire again.
It really seems to me that Putin has been knocked off balance. He was expecting a cakewalk. Instead the Russian advances have been stopped for the most part, and they are being reversed in some areas. The Russians have had an estimated 15,000 dead, including 4 generals. Putin has resorted to terror attacks, which is usually the mark of a loser.
In the meantime, individual programmers, including many Ukrainians, are launching successful cyber attacks on Russia. This is in addition to the economic sanctions that governments are using.
Putin does not want to be seen as someone who is inept and weak.
I don't think that Putin is crazy, but his legs seem as rubbery as Primo Canera was when he fought Max Baer (see youtube for the video).
Glenn's comment on China is keen -- but the timeline is probably only 10 years out. Probably also figures into the potential for the West attempting to flip Putin/Russia by force with this Ukraine business.
I am not surprised, as geostrategy is not the specialty of Prof. Loury, Prof. McWhorter, or Mr. Taibbi, but just about every possible reason for Russia's invasion was bruited - Putin's psychology/sanity, socio-cultural resentment against perceived western encroachment, political calculation about NATO - except military and economic strategy.
If possible, I strongly recommend that the podcast bring on someone like Peter Zeihan (particularly notable because he called this invasion several years ago in writing) who can meaningfully talk about how structural considerations like demography, geography, and resource production play into the cold logic of international affairs. (Spoiler: he thinks Russia isn't done invading places, but is running out of time, people, and sophisticated military equipment, and so does not pose a serious term threat beyond the next half decade or so).
Just to give Glenn an idea of the kind of film Stalker is, it has recitations from The Idiot, and it ends with a monologue from the main character’s wife like Molly’s speech in Ulysses. Tough nut to crack, but a treat for pretentious literature fans. A writer, a professor, and a sage go on a journey. Why complicate it? There’s a black and white to color transition like in Wizard of Oz. There’s a bit of everything in it.
Really appreciate you having Taibbi on. I find him to be a fair minded guy that comes from a different persuasion from myself so it's always illuminating.
I would love to have you and John have a far more expanded conversation on your question to John. Why don't people have a sense of tribe in the United States? I understand that we all have intersectional groups we belong to, but we are all still American. I'd love to have you explore this topic more.
I like Taibbi's tendency to try to find facts and think rather than go with the flow or tolerate cancel culture, but I think this is more due to journalism having generally lowered the bar so much than any singular contribution he's made lately. Always happy to find voices on the Left that I can tolerate, who try to maintain sanity and civility, but I didn't learn much from this conversation.
Huge long time fan of Matt's, going back well before vampire squid. He's the reason I came to Substack. That said, if Matt returns I hope you can administer some tough love and ask him about his book "I Can't Breathe."
Matt is an ethical journalist. A true professional. "I Can't Breathe," in and of itself, is fair, factual, and honest. However the book pushed the narrative of -- I'll be unapologetically glib here -- Cops Bad, Criminals Good. (We don't need Ibram X. Kendi to tell us what that slogan really means.)
I would like to know if Matt has any regrets about writing that book. A book that contributed to the pendulum being pushed to such an extreme that we now have a sickening crime wave (item: yesterday's carjacking in New Orleans) bizarrely and tacitly cheered on by DAs in nearly every major city. A book that helped grease the skids to "social equity."
I agree with some other listeners that this was a somewhat disappointing episode. Kudos to Matt for admitting he was wrong but like another listener has said there are others out there with more informed and interesting things to say about Ukraine. Michael Weiss was a great suggestion. Michael Kofman, Dmitri Alperovitch and Rob Lee would also be interesting guests if you wanted a more in depth analysis of the war and Russia's reasons for waging it.
Also Peter Zeihan might make for an interesting interview. His predictions, particularly those on Russia, have largely been accurate. His emphasis on demographics as drivers for countries foreign policies is something rarely discussed outside the world of geopolitical analysis. I think that you could have a very interesting conversation with him.
Glenn, you wondered if there might be a great post-Soviet post-apocalyptic novel. Yes, such a thing exists, and I am happy to point it out to you:
"The Slynx" by Tatyana Tolstaya (first published in Russian in 2000. An English translation was published three years later by NYRB).
It is a powerful, utterly bizarre post-apocalyptic novel. In a review, John Banville - one of the English language's greatest living novelists - wrote, "It is impossible to communicate adequately the richness, the exuberance, and the horrid inventiveness of 'The Slynx'." I very much agree. It is also - in spite of its subject matter - a very funny book. I disagree with Matt Tiabbi on many points, but I can join him in praising the dark comedic genius that runs through the work of so many Russian writers.
For some earlier, lighter (well, sort of), and funnier fare, I can second Matt's recommendation of Vladimir Voinovich - in particular, his book "The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin", a hilarious satire on all things Soviet, first published in 1969 (so just out of your "last 50 years" range).
In the sphere of public commentary, my three absolute favorite people in the world. If any one of you writes a piece or is on a podcast, I seek it out, so the three of you together was a great surprise and a treat.
"Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."
This was hard to listen to because of a couple of people seemingly having connection issues which resulted in a lot of audio problems. I’m on pretty good fiber broadband here so I don’t think it was me. Plus, when Glenn spoke I didn’t get those issues.
Sorry - not impressed by this episode. There are many excellent journalists who could shed light on the current situation in Ukraine (Michael Weiss is one who springs to mind immediately). Instead, Glenn invited someone who would echo his sentiments about how it's always the main stream (leftist) media that is to blame for everything. Everything must be examined through the prism of his own prejudices. It's great that Matt owned up to his own miscall of Putin's intentions but going forward he doesn't seem to have learned anything from it.
maybe you are a nutjob leftist who has fallen for every crackpot article screwing up our country…. and never apologizing for a second that everything you touch has turned out to be wrong.., not a little bit but completely
I agree. This was an underwhelming episode. Would have been much more enlightening if John could have gotten one of the numerous experts on Russian politics from Columbia University to come on. Columbia's Harriman Institute is one of the premier centers of Russian studies in the country.
I find myself missing the old Glenn Show when the lineup of guests and the topics covered was more varied.
really? how many current columbia professors are in any way clear thinking non mentally corrupt left leaning shrews? open your mind and listen to your compatriots no matter how vile you find them. only then will you be of any help to anyone.
Let's see..Timothy Frye, Alexander Cooley, Kimberley Marten, Jack Snyder, Stephen Sestanovich. Not sure why you think I find Glenn/John/Matt vile. I patronize the podcast! Not everything is about the culture war. Expertise is really important, and I wouldn't put Taibbi anywhere near the top of the list of people who write about or study Russia.
Taibbi wields his pen with panache, and I've enjoyed some of his columns. But he also suffers from what the French call a "déformation professionnelle". In this Glenn Show podcast, he blurs the distinction between the US government and the media to the point that a listener could come away with the feeling that it was the New York Times that ordered the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, there's much to criticize about Russiagate, but trying to connect it to Russia's current invasion of Ukraine is a desperate stretch - in the Procrustean sense.
Lamentable though the Iraq war was in hindsight, equating it with Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the stuff of dorm room BS sessions, and not befitting a serious thinker. The US was not trying to absorb Iraq into our own nation. The US did not act alone in that war (The UK was there too, and in the initial stages, so were Australia, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Poland). The US did not specifically target Iraqi civilians. The US did not try to hunt down international journalists covering the conflict. Zelensky can hardly be compared to Saddam Hussein. The motivations for the wars were completely different. Etc. etc.
I do worry that Taibbi (like so many others in the alternative media world) is liable to fall into the trap of being a professional contrarian. Last summer, for instance, he wrote a few puff pieces about Bret Weinstein, that utter charlatan. (A charlatan for whom, I might add, I once had quite a deal of respect.) Did Taibbi ever revisit that topic, I wonder? Ah, perhaps it was Tiabbi's participation in "Ivermectin-gate" that led Putin to invade!
matt grew up a lefty and they always need to fight back the instinct that no matter how much they come to realize how wrong they were they need to portray whataboutism and equating some faux pas with massively corrupt notions…i love that he has come around but please show me one article where someone of the left turning doesnt have to signal to their formerly left constituency that they are still in their corner to some degree…they cant just cross over to objectivity and sanity
Thanks for your thoughts; I basically agree. I think one of the reasons I feel so disappointed in Taibbi (and also Glenn for pushing the Russiagate issue) is that I recognize that they're bright talented men. It feels intellectually cheap and unworthy of them.
explain…you dont think the russiagate thing was massively divisive to our nation and the most corrupt political crime in our history? or am i missing your point? i hope it is the latter
I was disappointed in the discussion for several reasons. Because I am currently reading Ferguson's <i>War of the World,</i> recent events in E.Europe are discussed from all quarters in a dangerous, a-historical manner. Many periods of mass murder and internecine ethnic crimes predate this tragedy. Additionally, contemporary sources complete ignore US issues that provided comparable angst. I have yet to hear any journalist discuss the problematic arms-to-Ukraine with our history of debate about the Neutrality Acts, or with the rationale for not joining the League of Nations. Everyone dodges the question of NATO's Article 5 -- the axiomatic link to war if some one attacks a NATO member, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania or Latvia. After the start of WWI, there is, of course, no reason to think some small NATO member would start a False Flag war for narrow reasons. :)
For me, it is easy to project how we might be drawn into an unnecessary war. For others, many of whom thoughtlessly endorse a no-fly zone, less so!
For many citizens, it is axiomatic that the US should support independence for Ukraine. Russia's claim to re-gain control over a wayward state lacks standing. I wonder. How would Lincoln, for example, counsel Putin today? Upon what principles is statecraft based? Has Putin used the example of the Union's war on the Confederate States to bolster his claim? We should remember that General Sherman did not spread joy on this march through Georgia or his burning of Columbia, SC.
And, I was shocked none of the participants reflected on the problematic nature of Ukraine's location --- nukes there threaten Russia just as missiles in Cuba or a Chinese military base in Haiti would threaten us. The legacy of WWII for Russia and Ukraine is much more meaningful for contemporaries on both sides whose relatives died in the war. For us Americans, WWII in this area is but an "academic" subject for a few history profs. For them, the 100-1 WWII death ratio of Russians/US soldiers has yet to receive the sensitivity our foreign policy toward Putin and E. Europe deserves.
Yes, a single voice from the audience, but I remain "unimpressed" by the dialogue.
I agree with many of your comments. Not much discussion of the events leading up to WWI and WWII. There are a lot of corollaries between 1939-1941 and today. John's frame of reference seems to be the last 25 years. In any event it was better than listening to Glenn and John discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action for another hour.
I'll check out Ferguson's book. After the past 5 years or so of strictly non-fiction I recently took a break and switched to fiction. I read "The Winds of War" by Herman Wouk almost 50 years ago and am just about through with rereading it (audible book this time). It's scary to think how history may be repeating itself.
Thought I've spent years studying issues related to the origins and history of the Cold War, I confess my ignorance about many of the specifics about fascist actions since WWII and how they affect overarching Ukrainian/Russian relations. I also appreciate that there are a host of cultural/political issues that arise from ethnic identities and ethnic conflicts in E. Europe since WWII. In the US, we have problems understanding the history of cultural conflict between racial groups and between Tribal identities. Thus who can claim confidence about understanding conflicts between ethnic/language groups in E.Europe and Ukraine?
Just as Europeans would have difficulty understanding conflicts between various "black" groups -- and between various Indian tribes, I think it is a stretch to assume we can easily understand cultural/religious/intellectual conflicts among tribes in the US, let alone severe political factions in both our major political parties. Seems it is NOT unreasonable to assume we face a similar problem trying to understand the complexities of the contemporary conflict. Before WWI, most had simple but 'valid' views about the 'enemy' --simple views about the forces of light and darkness. Four years later--and for decades since, simple views fail to impress or satisfy. JMHO.
Maybe I wasn't paying attention but: no mention of Stalin deliberately starving some four million Ukrainian kulaks to death in the '30s. If NATO has missiles in Poland it's because the Poles begged (and I do mean 'begged') for them. Does Taibbi know any Pole, Czech, Slovak, Romanian, etc. who are eager to be subsumed into a Russian empire again.
It really seems to me that Putin has been knocked off balance. He was expecting a cakewalk. Instead the Russian advances have been stopped for the most part, and they are being reversed in some areas. The Russians have had an estimated 15,000 dead, including 4 generals. Putin has resorted to terror attacks, which is usually the mark of a loser.
In the meantime, individual programmers, including many Ukrainians, are launching successful cyber attacks on Russia. This is in addition to the economic sanctions that governments are using.
Putin does not want to be seen as someone who is inept and weak.
I don't think that Putin is crazy, but his legs seem as rubbery as Primo Canera was when he fought Max Baer (see youtube for the video).
Glenn's comment on China is keen -- but the timeline is probably only 10 years out. Probably also figures into the potential for the West attempting to flip Putin/Russia by force with this Ukraine business.
I am not surprised, as geostrategy is not the specialty of Prof. Loury, Prof. McWhorter, or Mr. Taibbi, but just about every possible reason for Russia's invasion was bruited - Putin's psychology/sanity, socio-cultural resentment against perceived western encroachment, political calculation about NATO - except military and economic strategy.
If possible, I strongly recommend that the podcast bring on someone like Peter Zeihan (particularly notable because he called this invasion several years ago in writing) who can meaningfully talk about how structural considerations like demography, geography, and resource production play into the cold logic of international affairs. (Spoiler: he thinks Russia isn't done invading places, but is running out of time, people, and sophisticated military equipment, and so does not pose a serious term threat beyond the next half decade or so).
Tarkovsky’s Stalker. Shot in Chernobyl exclusion zone before Chernobyl incident. Science fiction post apocalypse. Beautiful film.
Beautiful indeed. But a tough nut to crack. I'm not sure I ever managed the trick.
Tarkovsky's final film, The Sacrifice, which could be called "pre-apocalyptic", is also lovely, and a far easier entry point into Tarkovsky's work.
Just to give Glenn an idea of the kind of film Stalker is, it has recitations from The Idiot, and it ends with a monologue from the main character’s wife like Molly’s speech in Ulysses. Tough nut to crack, but a treat for pretentious literature fans. A writer, a professor, and a sage go on a journey. Why complicate it? There’s a black and white to color transition like in Wizard of Oz. There’s a bit of everything in it.
John, I’m not wondering why you don’t feel that way about being black, I’m wondering why you don’t feel that way about sports like a normal person.
Really appreciate you having Taibbi on. I find him to be a fair minded guy that comes from a different persuasion from myself so it's always illuminating.
I would love to have you and John have a far more expanded conversation on your question to John. Why don't people have a sense of tribe in the United States? I understand that we all have intersectional groups we belong to, but we are all still American. I'd love to have you explore this topic more.
I like Taibbi's tendency to try to find facts and think rather than go with the flow or tolerate cancel culture, but I think this is more due to journalism having generally lowered the bar so much than any singular contribution he's made lately. Always happy to find voices on the Left that I can tolerate, who try to maintain sanity and civility, but I didn't learn much from this conversation.
Huge long time fan of Matt's, going back well before vampire squid. He's the reason I came to Substack. That said, if Matt returns I hope you can administer some tough love and ask him about his book "I Can't Breathe."
Matt is an ethical journalist. A true professional. "I Can't Breathe," in and of itself, is fair, factual, and honest. However the book pushed the narrative of -- I'll be unapologetically glib here -- Cops Bad, Criminals Good. (We don't need Ibram X. Kendi to tell us what that slogan really means.)
I would like to know if Matt has any regrets about writing that book. A book that contributed to the pendulum being pushed to such an extreme that we now have a sickening crime wave (item: yesterday's carjacking in New Orleans) bizarrely and tacitly cheered on by DAs in nearly every major city. A book that helped grease the skids to "social equity."
I agree with some other listeners that this was a somewhat disappointing episode. Kudos to Matt for admitting he was wrong but like another listener has said there are others out there with more informed and interesting things to say about Ukraine. Michael Weiss was a great suggestion. Michael Kofman, Dmitri Alperovitch and Rob Lee would also be interesting guests if you wanted a more in depth analysis of the war and Russia's reasons for waging it.
Also Peter Zeihan might make for an interesting interview. His predictions, particularly those on Russia, have largely been accurate. His emphasis on demographics as drivers for countries foreign policies is something rarely discussed outside the world of geopolitical analysis. I think that you could have a very interesting conversation with him.
Agreed, invite Peter Zeihan.
Glenn, you wondered if there might be a great post-Soviet post-apocalyptic novel. Yes, such a thing exists, and I am happy to point it out to you:
"The Slynx" by Tatyana Tolstaya (first published in Russian in 2000. An English translation was published three years later by NYRB).
It is a powerful, utterly bizarre post-apocalyptic novel. In a review, John Banville - one of the English language's greatest living novelists - wrote, "It is impossible to communicate adequately the richness, the exuberance, and the horrid inventiveness of 'The Slynx'." I very much agree. It is also - in spite of its subject matter - a very funny book. I disagree with Matt Tiabbi on many points, but I can join him in praising the dark comedic genius that runs through the work of so many Russian writers.
For some earlier, lighter (well, sort of), and funnier fare, I can second Matt's recommendation of Vladimir Voinovich - in particular, his book "The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin", a hilarious satire on all things Soviet, first published in 1969 (so just out of your "last 50 years" range).
In the sphere of public commentary, my three absolute favorite people in the world. If any one of you writes a piece or is on a podcast, I seek it out, so the three of you together was a great surprise and a treat.
"...a tiny bit of pushback..."
"...says the New York Times columnist..."
Per the Rand Corporation, 2019:
"Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
This was hard to listen to because of a couple of people seemingly having connection issues which resulted in a lot of audio problems. I’m on pretty good fiber broadband here so I don’t think it was me. Plus, when Glenn spoke I didn’t get those issues.
Did anyone else experience this?
Yes!
Sorry - not impressed by this episode. There are many excellent journalists who could shed light on the current situation in Ukraine (Michael Weiss is one who springs to mind immediately). Instead, Glenn invited someone who would echo his sentiments about how it's always the main stream (leftist) media that is to blame for everything. Everything must be examined through the prism of his own prejudices. It's great that Matt owned up to his own miscall of Putin's intentions but going forward he doesn't seem to have learned anything from it.
maybe you are a nutjob leftist who has fallen for every crackpot article screwing up our country…. and never apologizing for a second that everything you touch has turned out to be wrong.., not a little bit but completely
I agree. This was an underwhelming episode. Would have been much more enlightening if John could have gotten one of the numerous experts on Russian politics from Columbia University to come on. Columbia's Harriman Institute is one of the premier centers of Russian studies in the country.
I find myself missing the old Glenn Show when the lineup of guests and the topics covered was more varied.
really? how many current columbia professors are in any way clear thinking non mentally corrupt left leaning shrews? open your mind and listen to your compatriots no matter how vile you find them. only then will you be of any help to anyone.
Let's see..Timothy Frye, Alexander Cooley, Kimberley Marten, Jack Snyder, Stephen Sestanovich. Not sure why you think I find Glenn/John/Matt vile. I patronize the podcast! Not everything is about the culture war. Expertise is really important, and I wouldn't put Taibbi anywhere near the top of the list of people who write about or study Russia.
My apologies for my coarse tone.
Taibbi wields his pen with panache, and I've enjoyed some of his columns. But he also suffers from what the French call a "déformation professionnelle". In this Glenn Show podcast, he blurs the distinction between the US government and the media to the point that a listener could come away with the feeling that it was the New York Times that ordered the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, there's much to criticize about Russiagate, but trying to connect it to Russia's current invasion of Ukraine is a desperate stretch - in the Procrustean sense.
Lamentable though the Iraq war was in hindsight, equating it with Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the stuff of dorm room BS sessions, and not befitting a serious thinker. The US was not trying to absorb Iraq into our own nation. The US did not act alone in that war (The UK was there too, and in the initial stages, so were Australia, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Poland). The US did not specifically target Iraqi civilians. The US did not try to hunt down international journalists covering the conflict. Zelensky can hardly be compared to Saddam Hussein. The motivations for the wars were completely different. Etc. etc.
I do worry that Taibbi (like so many others in the alternative media world) is liable to fall into the trap of being a professional contrarian. Last summer, for instance, he wrote a few puff pieces about Bret Weinstein, that utter charlatan. (A charlatan for whom, I might add, I once had quite a deal of respect.) Did Taibbi ever revisit that topic, I wonder? Ah, perhaps it was Tiabbi's participation in "Ivermectin-gate" that led Putin to invade!
matt grew up a lefty and they always need to fight back the instinct that no matter how much they come to realize how wrong they were they need to portray whataboutism and equating some faux pas with massively corrupt notions…i love that he has come around but please show me one article where someone of the left turning doesnt have to signal to their formerly left constituency that they are still in their corner to some degree…they cant just cross over to objectivity and sanity
Thanks for your thoughts; I basically agree. I think one of the reasons I feel so disappointed in Taibbi (and also Glenn for pushing the Russiagate issue) is that I recognize that they're bright talented men. It feels intellectually cheap and unworthy of them.
explain…you dont think the russiagate thing was massively divisive to our nation and the most corrupt political crime in our history? or am i missing your point? i hope it is the latter
I don’t hear that at all- maybe it’s your own prejudices.
I was disappointed in the discussion for several reasons. Because I am currently reading Ferguson's <i>War of the World,</i> recent events in E.Europe are discussed from all quarters in a dangerous, a-historical manner. Many periods of mass murder and internecine ethnic crimes predate this tragedy. Additionally, contemporary sources complete ignore US issues that provided comparable angst. I have yet to hear any journalist discuss the problematic arms-to-Ukraine with our history of debate about the Neutrality Acts, or with the rationale for not joining the League of Nations. Everyone dodges the question of NATO's Article 5 -- the axiomatic link to war if some one attacks a NATO member, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania or Latvia. After the start of WWI, there is, of course, no reason to think some small NATO member would start a False Flag war for narrow reasons. :)
For me, it is easy to project how we might be drawn into an unnecessary war. For others, many of whom thoughtlessly endorse a no-fly zone, less so!
For many citizens, it is axiomatic that the US should support independence for Ukraine. Russia's claim to re-gain control over a wayward state lacks standing. I wonder. How would Lincoln, for example, counsel Putin today? Upon what principles is statecraft based? Has Putin used the example of the Union's war on the Confederate States to bolster his claim? We should remember that General Sherman did not spread joy on this march through Georgia or his burning of Columbia, SC.
And, I was shocked none of the participants reflected on the problematic nature of Ukraine's location --- nukes there threaten Russia just as missiles in Cuba or a Chinese military base in Haiti would threaten us. The legacy of WWII for Russia and Ukraine is much more meaningful for contemporaries on both sides whose relatives died in the war. For us Americans, WWII in this area is but an "academic" subject for a few history profs. For them, the 100-1 WWII death ratio of Russians/US soldiers has yet to receive the sensitivity our foreign policy toward Putin and E. Europe deserves.
Yes, a single voice from the audience, but I remain "unimpressed" by the dialogue.
I agree with many of your comments. Not much discussion of the events leading up to WWI and WWII. There are a lot of corollaries between 1939-1941 and today. John's frame of reference seems to be the last 25 years. In any event it was better than listening to Glenn and John discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action for another hour.
I'll check out Ferguson's book. After the past 5 years or so of strictly non-fiction I recently took a break and switched to fiction. I read "The Winds of War" by Herman Wouk almost 50 years ago and am just about through with rereading it (audible book this time). It's scary to think how history may be repeating itself.
Thought I've spent years studying issues related to the origins and history of the Cold War, I confess my ignorance about many of the specifics about fascist actions since WWII and how they affect overarching Ukrainian/Russian relations. I also appreciate that there are a host of cultural/political issues that arise from ethnic identities and ethnic conflicts in E. Europe since WWII. In the US, we have problems understanding the history of cultural conflict between racial groups and between Tribal identities. Thus who can claim confidence about understanding conflicts between ethnic/language groups in E.Europe and Ukraine?
Just as Europeans would have difficulty understanding conflicts between various "black" groups -- and between various Indian tribes, I think it is a stretch to assume we can easily understand cultural/religious/intellectual conflicts among tribes in the US, let alone severe political factions in both our major political parties. Seems it is NOT unreasonable to assume we face a similar problem trying to understand the complexities of the contemporary conflict. Before WWI, most had simple but 'valid' views about the 'enemy' --simple views about the forces of light and darkness. Four years later--and for decades since, simple views fail to impress or satisfy. JMHO.
Thanks for the well-informed and challenging comment
Big fan of Matt tiabbi. Can’t wait to read and watch.